STATE OF MINNESOTA AND BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA,
    PLAINTIFFS,

    V. 

    PHILIP MORRIS, INC., ET. AL., 
    DEFENDANTS.


    TOPIC:          TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
            TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
    DOCKET-NUMBER:  C1-94-8565
    VENUE:          Minnesota District Court, Second Judicial District, Ramsey
    County.
    YEAR:           February 23, 1998
            A.M. Session

    JUDGE:          Hon. Judge Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge

    THE CLERK: All rise. Ramsey County District Court is now in session, the
    Honorable Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick presiding.
            (Jury enters the courtroom.)
        THE CLERK: You may be seated.
        THE COURT: Good morning.
            (Collective "Good morning.")
        THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.
        THE COURT: Good morning.
        All right, counsel.
        MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
        Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
            (Collective "Good morning.")
        JAMES F. GLENN called as a witness, being previously sworn, was
    examined and testified as follows:
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Good morning, Dr. Glenn.
        A. Good morning, Mr. Weber.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, when we stopped last Friday, we had discussed your
    background and credentials, the organization of the CTR, and the membership
    of the Scientific Advisory Board. Do you remember?
        A. Yes.
        Q. I want to start today discussing the research grant program of the
    Scientific Advisory Board, and the first question I'll have for you is
    whether the CTR over the years has published reports summarizing the
    research activity of its grantees?
        A. Yes, sir. There has been an annual report since the very beginning
    of -- of CTR, or TIRC. The annual report embraces policy statement,
    introduction, summary of activities of the preceding year, and then
    abstracts of all of the articles published by investigators who were
    supported by CTR during that year, and finally an index of all
    investigators in the current volume and all prior investigators.
        MR. WEBER: Your Honor, may I approach the witness with this set of
    exhibits?
            (Box of documents handed to the witness.)
        Q. Dr. Glenn, I know you've looked through that box before. Would you
    confirm that that includes originals or copies of the annual reports of The
    Council for Tobacco Research?
        A. Yes. These are -- are typical annual reports of CTR.
        MR. WEBER: Your Honor, let me hand up Exhibit 50002, and at this time I
    would move the admission through Exhibit 50002 of the annual reports of The
    Council for Tobacco Research.
        MR. CIRESI: We have no objection, Your Honor, subject to verification
    that each exhibit relates to the specific annual report.
        THE COURT: Are you going to read through all those, counsel?
        MR. CIRESI: I don't think so, Your Honor. I think I'll just check to
    make sure the year is the same as the number.
        *2 THE COURT: Court will receive 50002.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Dr. Glenn, would you turn to Exhibit MD000084, which is one of the
    CTR annual reports. I believe it's the 1992 annual report.
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And using the 1992 annual report, I'd like you to describe briefly
    for the jury the contents of an annual report.
        First of all, sir, is that the typical format for a CTR annual report
    during your tenure at CTR?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Now could you hold up the annual report for 1992 to the ladies and
    gentlemen of the jury so they could see what we're talking about.
        A. (Witness complies.)
        Q. Thank you.
        Now inside the front cover, Dr. Glenn, is a document called
    "Organzation and Policy." Correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And could you --
        Is there anything in the organization and policy you'd like to function
    -- or to mention specifically to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
        A. Well I think there are several important points here: it dates our
    origin back to 1954; it states that our support is from the tobacco
    manufacturers, growers and warehousemen; states that the program has been
    one of grants-in-aid, which is research grants, supplemented by contracts
    for research with institutions and laboratories; states that the council
    does not operate any research facility; states that the Scientific Advisory
    Board meets regularly to judge the grant applications; and it states that
    the council awards research grants to independent scientists who are
    assured complete scientific freedom in conducting their studies, and the
    grantees are responsible for reporting or publishing their findings in the
    accepted scientific manner.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, could you continue to the table of contents page.
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Bring that up just a little, if you could. Okay.
        Now does this describe the -- or set forth what's contained within the
    annual report?
        A. Yes, it does.
        Q. Now it refers in the -- two of those early lines to abstracts. Do
    you see that?
        A. Yes.
        Q. What is an abstract in the scientific literature?
        A. Well the abstract is a summary of a paper, and virtually every
    journal requires that there be an abstract paragraph by the authors of the
    study. The abstract details the reason for the research, the methods used
    in the research, the results and the author's conclusions from those
    results. Those abstracts are published with the paper. We simply take the
    abstract from the paper and use it as a report in the -- in the journal.
        Q. So the abstracts that are reprinted in the CTR annual report are
    simply reprints of abstracts from the scientific literature.
        A. Yes.
        Q. And down at the bottom of this table of contents, does it show in
    each annual report a list of all active projects?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And does it have a list of all completed projects over the years?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And does it have an index of the principal investigators over the
    years?
        A. It does.
        Q. Could you turn, Dr. Glenn, to the introduction page.
        *3 A. Yes.
        Q. Now as of 1992, approximately 204 million dollars had been spent in
    the council's research program; correct?
        A. That's correct.
        Q. Now it talks -- if we go down to the next paragraph that begins
    "Eighty- three...," could you read that paragraph to the ladies and
    gentlemen of the jury.
        A. "Eighty-three original projects were approved in 1992; many more
    continuing and renewal studies also were funded. To date, a total of 1,329
    original investigations have been reported -- supported by the council.
    Recipients for these are 932 independent scientists at more than 300
    medical schools, hospitals and research centers."
        Q. Now the next paragraph, Dr. Glenn.
        A. "Council grantees published 342 reports on their supported research
    during the year. Abstracts of these are included in this report. The total
    for such publications now is at least 4,770."
        Q. Now has that number grown for published reports since 1992?
        A. Yes, incrementally each year.
        Q. Now could you turn, I believe, to the next page, Dr. Glenn -- or
    excuse me, go to page 21, if you would, please.
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And that page at the top is entitled "Abstracts of Reports?"
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And that begins the reprints of the abstracts, and they're broken
    down by subject matter; correct?
        A. Correct.
        Q. And the first one, just as an example, I'd like you to focus on is
    this one which relates to the first in a series of cancer-related studies.
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Now are they listed --
        Are the abstracts listed alphabetically by the name of the grantee?
        A. Yes, they are.
        Q. Now this first one that's -- the beginning of which is "Malignant
    Epithelial Cells," do you see that?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Down at the bottom, does that indicate who the grantee is?
        A. Yes. This was Dr. Harry Antoniades, who was a professor at Harvard
    University Medical School.
        Q. Now --
        And then does the next line advise as to where this research was
    published?
        A. It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
    Sciences in May 1992.
        Q. Is the National -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
    one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Have SAB members over the years been members of the National Academy
    of Sciences?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Now was this research grant here supported by funding from any other
    research institute?
        A. It is noted that other support in addition to CTR was from the
    National Institutes of Health.
        Q. Now when CTR reprints these abstracts and talks about other support,
    where do they get the information as to who else has funded this research?
        A. This comes from the paper itself. The investigators will have a
    footnote on the paper that says support for this research work came from
    the following sources, and it may say CTR grant number such and such, may
    say NIH and give the grant number, may say American Heart, American Lung,
    or whatever the source of other funding may be. Sometimes there are several
    sources.
        *4 Q. Now does this reprinting of abstracts continue by category
    throughout the report?
        A. I'm sorry, Mr. Weber?
        Q. Does the reprinting of the abstracts by category continue throughout
    the report?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Could you turn back to the table of contents for a moment, Dr.
    Glenn.
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And does that show that there are approximately 26 pages of
    abstracts on cancer-related studies?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And approximately 14 on the respiratory system?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Approximately 36 on heart and circulation?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Approximately ten on neuropharmacology and physiology?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And approximately 103 on pharmacology, biochemistry and cell
    biology?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And approximately 28 on immunology and adaptive mechanisms?
        A. That's correct.
        Q. And when listing the active projects, is that approximately 24 pages
    to list?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And completed projects, about 25 pages or so?
        A. Yes, sir.
        MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, all the questions are leading, and I don't know
    if this is preliminary, going to something, but I'm going to object to the
    leading nature of the questions.
        THE COURT: Well they are leading, but I consider it just preliminary.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Now let's discuss how the grant process works that leads to the
    funding of this research, if we could, Dr. Glenn.
        When the SAB approves an application and advises The Council for
    Tobacco Research that it should be funded, is the funding provided directly
    to the researcher?
        A. No, no. The funding goes to the institution in which the
    investigator is employed. The responsible fiscal authority for the grant
    will be the institution. For example, with the grant to Dr. Antoniades, the
    grant in that case, I think, was to the Harvard School of Public Health,
    and they are responsible for reporting on expenditure of funds.
        Q. When a researcher applies for a grant, what are they advised as to
    the policy of the CTR as to publication of research results?
        A. Well they're universally advised that they are encouraged to publish
    their results, and specifically to report in accepted peer-reviewed
    journals.
        Q. Is the application for a grant a two-step process, doctor?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Could you describe that.
        A. Well generally an investigator will learn of CTR as a source from
    one of its colleagues or perhaps at a medical meeting where someone
    mentions support by CTR. They then will contact us by telephone or by
    letter, and we have response to them that indicates that we would like to
    see a preliminary proposal, which would be a two- or three-page letter, not
    in great detail or great depth. That preliminary inquiry, then, is
    circulated to members of the Scientific Advisory Board, and if they feel
    like it's within our area of interest; that is, a project that we would
    want to support, then the investigator is so advised and encouraged to
    develop the full grant application, which sometimes may run to 20 or 30
    pages. So it's quite a bit of work to put together a grant application.
        *5 In that application, that second application, the final application,
    they will detail the project, they will give a bibliography of background
    information that's necessary to develop their -- their thesis, they will
    tell us of the methodology they intend to use, they will tell us who else
    will be involved in the project, they'll provide a brief resume of their
    own credentials and those -- and the credentials of the others who work
    with them, and then finally they will present us with a budget for the
    project, detailing how they would expend the funds that they're requesting.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, could you briefly outline for the jury the criteria
    applied by the SAB when they receive a final application.
        A. Well I think the first criterion, of course, is merit, is this
    project worthy of support in the -- in the view of the scientists who do
    the review? Secondly, I think they would consider whether this is -- will
    add to the general body of knowledge in the particular field. I think they
    also consider its relevance to issues of smoking and health; that is to
    say, is this a fundamental problem that will shed light on the fundamental
    disease processes that are going on in those diseases that are
    statistically associated with smoking? They will look clearly at the
    qualifications of the investigator. They look at the quality of the
    institution from which the application comes. They make certain that the
    laboratory facilities and equipment are available and appropriate to the
    study that's being proposed. And I think those -- that covers generally the
    field that they would examine.
        Q. During your tenure at the CTR, has the Scientific Advisory Board
    discussed factors such as legal implications, public relations
    implications, or whether the companies themselves would approve or not
    approve of the research?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Is the Scientific Advisory Board in fact an Advisory Board?
        A. It is.
        Q. How -- how does that work?
        A. Well obviously the final decision about the amount of funding is
    left to our staff and the administrative process. The Scientific Advisory
    Board ranks the grant applications according to the criteria we've
    discussed. This ranking is a numerical ranking. Each member of the SAB
    votes on a scale of one to five. Clearly we can develop a -- an average
    score for each grant application that gives us a ranking system. The staff
    then accepts the recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Board and may
    make adjustments to budget. For example, if an investigator requests a very
    expensive piece of equipment and in our view this is something that the
    institution ought to undertake because it's going to be a long-term
    acquisition for them, then we may say please send us a revised budget
    indicating deletion of this particular piece of equipment, and the
    investigators will almost universally respond in that way.
        Q. Is there anyone who votes on the rankings other than the SAB
    members?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Are you aware of a committee that was in existence at one time known
    as the Industry Technical Committee?
        *6 A. Yes, sir.
        Q. What was --
        What's your understanding of what the Industry Technical Committee was?
        A. The Industry Technical Committee, I think -- I -- I've never met
    with them or talked to them about this, but I think --
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, it calls for speculation and conjecture.
        MR. WEBER: I'll lay some foundation.
        THE COURT: You'll have to lay some foundation, counsel.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Given your experience at The Council for Tobacco Research, have you
    come to gain an understanding from its records and from the meetings you've
    attended as to what was the Industry Technical Committee?
        A. I have.
        Q. Could you explain that, sir.
        A. Industry Technical Committee --
        MR. CIRESI: Excuse me.
        A. -- was made up of representatives --
        MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, doctor. Excuse me. There still is no foundation.
    I don't know what documents he's referring to.
        THE COURT: Can you give us a little more, please.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Dr. Glenn, have you, during your tenure at CTR, met with an
    individual who was a representative of the Industry Technical Committee?
        A. I have met representatives of the Industry Technical Committee, yes.
        Q. Did industry -- members of the Industry Technical Committee at any
    time attend meetings of the Scientific Advisory Board?
        A. In my early tenure with CTR, the Industry Technical Committee would
    send one representative to each meeting.
        Q. And have you come to understand about whether the Industry Technical
    Committee would attend meetings of the SAB in prior years?
        A. As I understand it, they did.
        Q. Can you explain to me what your understanding is of the Industry
    Technical Committee?
        MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, I'm going to object, again, because now he says
    that they attended, and just before, at --
        "Question: What was your understanding of what the Industry Technical
    Committee was?
        "The Industry Technical Committee, I think -- I -- I've never met with
    them or talked to them about this, but I think --"
        And now he says that they were at meetings where he was at. There's
    still no foundation.
        THE COURT: All right.
        MR. WEBER: May I be heard?
        THE COURT: Yes.
        MR. WEBER: I mean he's made it clear that he said he never met with the
    whole committee, but he has met with representatives of the committee. They
    have attended meetings. He has a first-hand understanding of why they were
    there, and that's all I'm asking for, is him to explain that.
        THE COURT: Okay. Are you going to be asking questions about their
    attendance at these meetings here?
        MR. WEBER: Yes.
        THE COURT: Okay. Go head.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. What was your understanding as to the role that a representative of
    the Industry Technical Committee played at meetings of the Scientific
    Advisory Board?
        A. The representative who came to the meetings was there only as a
    consultant in case any question arose as to research that was being
    accomplished by the industry, or to answer technical questions, usually of
    a chemical nature.
        *7 Q. Did any member of the Industry Technical Committee ever vote on a
    grant application?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Did company scientists ever vote on grant applications?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. By the way, would outside scientists from the public health
    community be invited from time to time to attend SAB meetings?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Can you explain that.
        A. Well the CTR intended to maintain contact with the general
    biomedical research community and with public health officials, and
    frequently there would be representatives from the American Heart
    Association, American Cancer Society, the NIH, particularly the National
    Cancer Institute, who would join the meetings. Not at voting members, but
    simply to be there for technical consultation if required.
        Q. You mentioned NIH, Dr. Glenn.
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. National --
        That's National Institute of Health?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Now in addition to the grant process, did CTR sometimes fund
    research by contract?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Was the contract research approved by the Scientific Advisory Board?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Was it part of the Scientific Advisory Board's research program?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Do other funding institutions use contracts occasionally as well to
    fund research?
        A. Yes. I think virtually every funding organization uses the contract
    mechanism, including agencies of the federal government, and the reason is
    that generally the contract research that's -- that is specified is of such
    magnitude, such size, that one single laboratory or independent
    investigator probably couldn't -- couldn't manage it himself. So the
    contract work was usually limited to bigger projects.
        Q. And does the National Institute of Health use contract research?
        A. Yes.
        Q. How does the amount of funded research that went through the SAB
    program break down between grant research and contract research?
        A. I've forgotten the exact figures, but I -- I think currently -- or
    in 1994 the amount of contract research would constitute less than five
    percent of the total budget.
        Q. So the vast majority has been the grant program.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, what is CRT's policy regarding the publication of
    research results undertaken by researchers that the CTR SAB has funded?
        A. Policy is that the -- as stated in the policy statement --
    investigators are encouraged to present and publish their results in the
    usual and accepted scientific manner.
        Q. Have the results of CTR-funded research appeared in leading
    scientific journals throughout the world?
        A. They have.
        Q. Could you turn to tab 13, Dr. Glenn, and that is Exhibit AM000204.
        A. Yes, sir, I have that.
        Q. And can you identify that as a listing of journals and publications
    in which CTR research has appeared?
        A. I can, yes.
        MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of Exhibit AM000204.
        MR. CIRESI: No objection, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: Court will receive AM000204.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Now Dr. Glenn, that list is approximately 29 pages long?
        *8 A. It is.
        Q. Let's start with U.S. journals and just go through a few briefly.
        Has research funded through the SAB appeared in the Journal of the
    National Cancer Institute?
        A. It has.
        Q. In a journal called Cancer?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Is Cancer one of the world's leading journals?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Cell?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Chest?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Circulation?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Immunology?
        A. Yes.
        Q. The Journal of Cell Biology?
        A. Yes.
        Q. The New England Journal of Medicine?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. In all the --
        Would you say that the vast majority of the leading U.S. medical
    journals have carried reports of research funded by the CTR Scientific
    Advisory Board?
        A. Yes, as documented here.
        Q. How about international journals, have -- has work funded by the CTR
    SAB program appeared in international journals as well?
        A. Numerous international journals.
        Q. Is The Lancet --
        What's the reputation for a journal called The Lancet in the medical
    community?
        A. Lancet is one of the oldest medical journals. It is a British
    journal. Probably I would have to say if not the most respected, one of the
    most respected journals in the world.
        Q. Has research funded by CRT's SAB appeared in The Lancet?
        A. Yes.
        Q. In the British Journal of Cancer?
        A. Yes.
        Q. British Medical Journal?
        A. Yes.
        Q. How about leading French and European journals?
        A. There also.
        Q. Italian journals?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Israeli?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Scandanavia?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Germany and Japan?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Has the United States Public Health Service ever cited research
    funded by the scientific Advisory Board in its Surgeon General reports?
        A. Yes. I think cumulatively probably 300, 350 times.
        Q. To your knowledge, has The Council for Tobacco Research ever
    suppressed the publication of research it funded?
        A. No.
        Q. Let's discuss now briefly some of the institutions where CTR-funded
    research has been conducted and some of the researchers, starting right
    here. Could you turn to tab 14, Dr. Glenn.
        A. I have it.
        Q. That's demonstrative Exhibit 1925B, as in blue. Can you identify
    that document, Dr. Glenn? Is it a demonstrative chart relating to funding
    in the state of Minnesota?
        A. It is. These are CTR grantees in the state of Minnesota.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, before you go ahead, I need to move it into evidence.
        MR. WEBER: I'd like to move for demonstrative purposes, Your Honor, the
    admission of Exhibit 1925B.
        MR. CIRESI: No objection, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: Court will receive 1925B for demonstrative purposes.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. And can you describe just briefly what this is, Dr. Glenn?
        A. This is entitled "CTR Grantees in Minnesota."
        Q. (Coughing) Excuse me.
        And does it list those people who have received grants from the
    Scientific Advisory Board and conducted research in this state over the
    years?
        A. It does.
        Q. Has the CTR Scientific Advisory Board funded research across the
    United States as well, Dr. Glenn?
        *9 A. Oh, it has, in virtually every state.
        Q. Can you turn to tab 15. That's Exhibit 19 -- demonstrative Exhibit
    1970.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Is that a chart demonstrative showing the geographical spread of CTR
    grant research?
        A. It is.
        MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the admission for demonstrative
    purposes of Exhibit 1970.
        MR. CIRESI: No objection, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: Court will receive 1970 for demonstrative purposes.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Can we pull that up or not? Okay. Put the -- well, sorry I can't get
    that to look any better.
        Is this a chart that represents funding across the country?
        A. This is a map of the United States, and representative grantee
    institutions are listed here. This is not a complete list, but it does show
    the geographic distribution of grants that have been made over the years.
        Q. Has CTR funded research of major United States universities?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Let me go through just a representative list with you. And answer
    "yes" or "no" on each one as to whether research has been funded there
    through the SAB.
        At Duke?
        A. Yes.
        Q. At Yale?
        A. Yes.
        Q. At Harvard?
        A. Yes.
        Q. MIT?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Stanford?
        A. Yes.
        Q. University of Chicago?
        A. Yes.
        Q. University of Minnesota?
        A. Yes.
        Q. University of Wisconsin?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Iowa University?
        A. Yes.
        Q. University of Michigan?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Johns Hopkins?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Penn?
        A. Yes.
        Q. University of California?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Cornell?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Many others?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Has CTR also funded research at major biomedical research
    institutions in the United States and abroad?
        A. It has.
        Q. At the Dana Farber Institute?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Where is that located, doctor?
        A. In Boston.
        Q. And what is that?
        A. It is a research institute that is affiliated with the Harvard
    Medical School and several of the Harvard hospitals.
        Q. At the Mayo Clinic?
        A. Yes.
        Q. At the Fox Chase Cancer Center?
        A. Yes.
        Q. What is the Fox Chase Cancer Center?
        A. Fox Chase is an independent cancer research institution which has
    affiliations with the Philadelphia Medical School.
        Q. At the Scripps Institute?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Is that a major funder and performer or --
        Is that a major research institution?
        A. It is, and -- and a major clinical institution as well, the Scripps
    Clinic and Scripps Hospital.
        Q. And has CTR funded research in overseas research institutions?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Including the Karolinska Institute?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Where is that located?
        A. In Stockholm, Sweden.
        Q. Are you generally familiar with the reputations of the institutions
    and investigators and researchers who have been funded through the SAB
    grant program?
        A. I am.
        Q. And what is that reputation in the biomedical community?
        A. Well, I think, you know, these are the top institutions, and the
    investigators have been of first-rank quality, respected by their peers,
    acknowledged by the biomedical research community to be outstanding
    contributors.
        *10 Q. You mentioned on Friday that one SAB member had been nominated
    for a Nobel Prize?
        A. Well as a matter of fact three of them have.
        Q. Members of the Scientific Advisory Board over the years?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Have any of the CTR grantees ever been nominated for the Nobel
    Prize?
        A. Yes, many of them, and three of them have -- have won the Nobel
    Prize.
        Q. Can you identify these grantees of CTR who have won Nobel Prizes?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, Your Honor, it's irrelevant.
        THE COURT: Oh, you may answer that.
        THE WITNESS: Answer it, Your Honor?
        THE COURT: Yes.
        A. Dr. Baruch Benacerraf at Harvard won the Nobel Prize. We supported
    Dr. Benacerraf for a number of years. His work was in the area of molecular
    biology. He's really considered to be a pioneer of molecular biology.
        Second one was Dr. Stanley Cohen, whose work was with growth factor.
    Dr. Cohen is professor at Vanderbilt University Medical School in
    Nashville. Dr. Cohen was the person who really opened up the field of
    growth factor. Growth factor is a substance that is virtually essential for
    cell proliferation, for cell growth.
        And the third individual who won the Nobel Prize for his work in
    oncogenes, the cancer-causing gene, was Dr. Harold Varmus, who was then
    professor at the University of California-San Francisco, but who is now the
    director of the National Institutes of Health.
        Q. And were these researchers awarded their Nobel Prizes for research
    in areas that included the areas that CTR had funded them in?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Do CTR grantees typically get all of their research funding from
    CTR?
        A. Oh, no. As a matter of fact, our funding many times was in the form
    of seed money, something to help get a project started. Our grants were not
    huge grants for the most part, 80, 85 thousand dollars a year, but it would
    get an investigator started on a given project. And usually those that were
    off to a successful start could then attract major funding from federal
    funding sources.
        Q. How does CTR know who -- what other institutions may be funding a
    researcher that they're funding?
        A. Well in the grant application an investigator is asked to list the
    sources of funding that he has currently, as well as pending funding; that
    is, where he may have applied for additional funding, and of course when we
    receive the report from the investigator year by year, we know what other
    funding he's gotten because he tells us.
        Q. And is it also disclosed in publications eventually?
        A. Yes, as we discussed.
        Q. And is it of any significance to those of you affiliated with CTR
    and the Scientific Advisory Board as to the fact that researchers funded
    through the SAB program are also getting funding from other sources?
        A. Well I think it's reassurance that our judgment was correct in the
    first place.
        Q. Let me turn now to some changes in CTR over the years, if I might,
    Dr. Glenn.
        During your tenure at CTR, has CTR engaged in any active public
    information, public affairs, public relations activities?
        *11 A. No.
        Q. Does CTR send out routine press releases any more in your tenure?
        A. Once a year we send a brief press release announcing the publication
    of the annual report, and it usually -- this little, brief blurb usually
    says how much money we have expended for research grants during the -- the
    past year, the number of grantees that we've supported, and the cumulative
    experience in supporting biomedical research, and that's about the size of
    it.
        Q. And are the annual reports distributed to medical schools and
    medical libraries throughout the country?
        A. Every medical school in North America, the deans of all the medical
    schools; also to all of our current and former grantees, we send a copy of
    the annual report so they can see for themselves the progress; these
    reports are also sent to major newspapers along with the brief press
    release.
        Q. Based on your understanding of the history of CTR -- and I know you
    don't know everything, but based on what you do know -- do you know whether
    CTR in its earlier years played a more active or different role with
    respect to public information and press activity?
        A. Yes, they were more active.
        Q. And did that activity diminish over time?
        A. It did.
        Q. Could you explain that for us in terms of your understanding.
        A. Well in the beginning, you know, under the terms of the Frank
    Statement, the TIRC, later the CTR, was charged with not only supporting an
    investigative program, but also with making public the information that was
    developed. By just -- within just a few years it was recognized that the
    public information charge was more appropriately done by another agency,
    and The Tobacco Institute was formed, and it gradually took over the
    function of public information.
        Q. Do other research funders and other research institutions have
    public affairs or public relations offices?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, foundation, hearsay, irrelevant.
        THE COURT: Sustained.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, have the academic institutions and hospitals that you've
    been associated with over the years also had public relations or public
    affairs offices?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, irrelevant.
        THE COURT: Sustained.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, what function, based on your knowledge, do public affairs
    or public information offices that are affiliated with universities or
    research institutions serve?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, irrelevant, foundation.
        THE COURT: Sustained.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, to your knowledge, did any public relations activity at
    CTR affect the quality of any research that was being done?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Let me ask now about another change over the years. Did CTR once
    fund research through what was called CTR special projects?
        A. Yes.
        Q. When did CTR special projects begin, Dr. Glenn?
        A. I believe in about 1965.
        Q. Do you know when they ended?
        A. About 1990.
        Q. Was the CRT's scientific director involved at all in approving CTR
    special projects?
        A. Yes. The scientific director reviewed every special -- CTR special
    project that was proposed by the sponsors, reviewing it primarily for
    scientific merit, whether he thought it would add anything to the body of
    knowledge in the -- in the general field.
        *12 Q. Did you approve any research of CRT's special projects when you
    were scientific director?
        A. Not new projects, because the project -- the special projects of CTR
    were gradually winding down. I did approve a renewal of one of the CTR
    special projects.
        Q. Do other funding institutions such as the National Institutes of
    Health use the term "special projects" to designate certain of their
    research?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, Your Honor, it's irrelevant, there's no
    foundation.
        THE COURT: Sustained.
        MR. WEBER: Let me ask -- let me see if I can lay some foundation here,
    Your Honor.
        MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, I'm going to object also on irrelevance.
        THE COURT: Okay. I don't know what that has got to do with this case,
    counsel. Why don't you move on.
        MR. WEBER: Can I -- well can I try to ask one question, see if I can
    address this, Your Honor? I think it might address the court's concern.
        THE COURT: Okay.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Does the term "special project" or "National Institute of Health
    special project" have a recognized meaning in the research community?
        A. It does.
        MR. CIRESI: Objection. Excuse me, doctor. It's irrelevant.
        THE COURT: No, you may answer that.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, would you like the question again or do you remember it?
        A. I remember the question.
        Q. Okay.
        A. The National Institutes of Health does have a public relations
    function and they do --
        MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, --
        MR. WEBER: No, --
        MR. CIRESI: -- that's not --
        MR. WEBER: -- that was not the question.
        MR. CIRESI: Excuse me.
        THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to try --
        MR. CIRESI: He's given an answer to a different question. I don't know
    where that came from.
        THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to try it again, counsel?
        MR. WEBER: Yeah, I'll ask it again.
        THE COURT: Okay.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Dr. Glenn, does the term "special project" or "National Institute of
    Health special project" have a recognized meaning in the medical research
    community?
        A. Yes.
        Q. What does that mean to those of you in the medical research
    community?
        MR. CIRESI: Again, Your Honor, I'm going to object on relevance
    grounds.
        THE COURT: No, you may answer that.
        A. Special projects are projects supported by the NIH or another agency
    with a specific purpose. It's more in the line of contract research than it
    is the usual competitive grant-in-aid.
        Q. Were CTR special projects handled separately from the SAB grant
    program?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Were CTR special projects reported in the annual report?
        A. No.
        Q. Did funds for CTR special projects come out of the or take away from
    the Scientific Advisory Board's research budget?
        A. No. They were independently funded.
        Q. How did the amount spent on CTR special projects over the years
    compare to that spent on -- the money spent in the grant program?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, Your Honor, it's already been testified to. We
    put a document in on his cross-examination with regard to it.
        *13 THE COURT: Okay. I think we covered it once. I'll -- I hope we
    aren't going to go into depth again; are we?
        MR. WEBER: No, we're not.
        THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
        Q. Go ahead, do you remember --
        A. I don't remember the exact figures, but it amounts to only a
    fraction of the total SAB grant funds.
        Q. Did you understand that CTR special projects were suggested by the
    sponsors of CTR?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Do you know whether lawyers may have suggested some of those
    projects to the sponsors?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, Your Honor, he testified last Friday he didn't
    know.
        THE COURT: Okay.
        MR. WEBER: Well may I respond?
        THE COURT: You're going to respond to counsel?
        MR. WEBER: Yes.
        THE COURT: I thought we were going to have a question and answer
    between the attorney and the witness. Okay.
        MR. WEBER: Yes, I'm sorry.
        THE COURT: If you have a question, ask the witness.
        MR. WEBER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the ruling on that, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: Okay. The ruling is overruled.
        MR. WEBER: Excuse me. I'm still a little stuffed up, so I -- excuse me.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Do you remember the question, Dr. Glenn?
        A. No.
        Q. Okay. Did you have an understanding as to whether lawyers may have
    been people who suggested to the sponsors that certain special projects be
    done?
        A. I didn't understand that, but it's not unreasonable that they would
    have been consulted.
        Q. Does the fact that the sponsors or perhaps even their lawyers may
    have suggested that certain research be funded make that research itself
    unreliable?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, it's speculation, there's no foundation for this
    witness.
        THE COURT: Well what you're -- you are getting very leading, counsel. I
    wonder if you could --
        MR. WEBER: Okay.
        THE COURT: -- make your questions a little more general.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Does -- how do scientists -- strike that. Does the --
        Does who sponsored the research control the question of whether
    research is reliable or not?
        A. No.
        MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, doctor. Your Honor, I'm going to object to that.
    Whose research? In what year? There's no foundation, it's vague and
    overbroad.
        THE COURT: I expect you will ask him something more specific. I'll
    allow the question and you may answer it.
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Go ahead.
        A. The source of funding does not dictate the quality or the type of
    research.
        Q. In your 46 years in academic medicine and being involved in research
    and being on funding organizations, do you have an understanding as to how
    scientists judge the quality of published research?
        A. Yes.
        Q. How is that done?
        A. Well the presentation of scientific research may be in the form of a
    verbal presentation, oral presentation at a medical meeting. Papers to be
    presented at a medical meeting are reviewed by a committee of peers, of
    people who are knowledgeable in that area. And it's competitive. They are
    not going to accept -- at a qualified medical meeting they will not accept
    presentation of shoddy or inaccurate research.
        *14 The same thing holds true for publication. The articles submitted
    for publication in these hundreds of medical journals are reviewed by an
    editorial board of peers, people who are knowledgeable in the field, and
    those papers that are -- are not of quality are rejected.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, have you come --
        Do you have an understanding as to why CTR special projects were funded
    through CTR?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Could you explain that.
        A. I think it was purely a matter of convenience. The funding mechanism
    in medical research institutions, medical schools, clinics, hospitals, is
    different from the usual course of business. Each institution will have a
    grants and contracts office, and they will have a financial officer that is
    in charge and is responsible for receiving the funds.
        CTR staff were accustomed to dealing with institutions and providing
    the funds and receiving reports of expenditure of funds, so it was a
    convenience for the sponsor companies simply to fund these special projects
    of CTR through the CTR offices.
        Q. Has CTR compiled a list from its records of CRT's special projects?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Could you turn to tab 16, Dr. Glenn, and that would be Exhibit
    AM005003.
        A. Yes, I have it.
        Q. Can you identify that as a list from CRT's records of CRT's special
    projects?
        A. Yes.
        MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of Exhibit AM005003, a
    list of special projects of CTR.
        MR. CIRESI: I have no objection to this, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: Court will receive AM005003.
        MR. WEBER: (Coughing) Excuse me.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Approximately how many CTR special projects were there, Dr. Glenn?
        A. Approximately 110.
        Q. Were all CTR special projects original laboratory or scientific
    research?
        A. Not in the early days. I think there were some focus studies that
    were epidemiological surveys, literature reviews, but toward the end of the
    special projects they were original research, yes.
        Q. Did CTR have a policy regarding the publication of research results
    resulting from original research in CRT's special projects?
        A. Yes.
        Q. What was that policy?
        A. The same policy that we had for grants and contracts, and that was
    that publication was the responsibility of the investigator, and they were
    encouraged to -- to present or publish their work in the standard
    scientific manner.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, could you turn to tab 17.
        MR. WEBER: And Your Honor, may I approach? It's another composite
    exhibit list.
        Do we have a copy for Mr. Ciresi?
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Dr. Glenn, does tab 17 collect funding letters to researchers
    receiving CTR special projects?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And is that a complete collection of the letters that exist in
    informing a researcher of their approval as a special project for CTR as
    from the files of CTR?
        A. Yes, it does.
        MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the admission through Exhibit 50003,
    which lists numbers, of the exhibits listed thereon.
        MR. CIRESI: Once again, Your Honor, we have no objection in order to
    expedite matters, so long as we have an opportunity to verify.
        *15 THE COURT: All right. Court will receive Exhibit 50003.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Now Dr. Glenn, could you turn within tab 17 to the exhibit listed
    MD001076.
        A. It's going to take me a long time to find that, counselor.
        Q. Well why don't we do it this way then. Why don't you --
        Oh, these are the numbers on the left-hand side, Dr. Glenn. That might
    make it easier.
        A. Oh, I'm sorry.
        MR. WEBER: May I approach, Your Honor, to speed this up?
        Q. See the exhibit numbers down here, Dr. Glenn? Wait, you're almost
    there. MD001076. Do you see that?
        A. Correct.
        Q. And I will ask you a couple more of these, and that's where you'll
    find those numbers.
        Can we bring that up?
        Now is this a letter sent to a researcher who was going to receive CTR
    special project funding?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And can you describe or read that letter and explain its purpose at
    CTR.
        A. Well it's to Dr. Doris Herman in the Department of Pathology,
    University of Southern California in Los Angeles, refers to a letter of May
    25th confirming the financial assistance which she had requested. It's
    written by Dr. Hoyt, who said he inadvertently failed to mention that our
    records will designate your undertaking as a special project of The Council
    for Tobacco Research rather than a grant-in-aid, and it further tells her
    that if a credit line should be inserted into any future publication, it
    should be so worded in order to avoid its being confused with the grant
    program of the Scientific Advisory Board.
        Q. Now Dr. Glenn, could you continue on to MD001108, which is another
    letter. And maybe to make it quicker, Dr. Glenn --
        A. I have it.
        Q. Okay. And that's a letter to Dr. Macdonald?
        A. No, sir, --
        Q. Okay.
        A. -- I don't have it.
        Q. Why don't you look on the one on the screen then. Is that 1108?
        A. Yes.
        Q. All right. That's a letter to Dr. Eleanor Macdonald?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Okay. And again in that second-to-the-last paragraph, could you read
    that?
        A. "Our records will designate this undertaking as a special project of
    The Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A., Inc., rather than a grant-in-aid.
    If a credit line should be inserted into any future publications, it should
    be worded to avoid its being confused with the grant program of the
    Scientific Advisory Board."
        Q. All right. And are these examples we've seen consistent with the
    types of letters that were sent to special project recipients?
        A. Yes. I -- I have reviewed many of these letters, and they all
    contain similar wording.
        Q. Generally they all contain that wording.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Now did CTR special project researchers in fact publish their work?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Are the publications of CTR special projects, research of which CTR
    is aware, listed in Exhibit AM005003, which is at tab 16, and that's the
    list of special projects that were admitted into evidence just a little
    earlier?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And you've reviewed that list; haven't you, doctor?
        *16 A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Were the results of CTR special project research generally published
    in quality scientific peer-review journals?
        A. Generally, yes.
        Q. Did research funded of CTR special project research include research
    undertaken at quality institutions?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Can you turn to tab 18, which is Exhibit 1217.
        A. I have it.
        Q. And is that a representative -- demonstrative chart representing
    some of the institutions that received special project research?
        A. Yes, sir.
        MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of Exhibit 1217 for
    demonstrative purposes.
        MR. CIRESI: No objection, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: Court will receive 1217 for demonstrative purposes.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Now are these some of the institutions that have received CTR
    special project funding, Dr. Glenn?
        A. Some, but not all. This is not an inclusive list.
        Q. And are these quality research institutions?
        A. Absolutely.
        Q. Did other quality funding organizations also support research and
    researchers who were at the same time being supported by CTR special
    project funding?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Could you turn to tab 19, which is demonstrative Exhibit 1218.
        A. I have it.
        Q. Is that a listing of some other organizations that also funded CTR
    special project research?
        A. It is.
        MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the admission of Exhibit 1218 for
    demonstrative purposes.
        MR. CIRESI: No objection, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: Court will receive 1218 for demonstrative purposes.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Now how is it that CTR developed this representative list of other
    organizations that were funding CTR -- were funding research that was also
    being funded as a CTR special project?
        A. Well again, this would come from the footnote credit line of the
    papers published by the investigators where they would acknowledge support
    by CTR as a special project, along with support from one or more of these
    additional institutions and other agencies as well.
        MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'm going to take a slight change in topic here,
    and I can take a break whenever the court would want. I just --
        THE COURT: All right. Well let's take a short recess now.
        MR. WEBER: Okay.
            (Recess taken.)
        THE CLERK: All rise. Court is again in session.
            (Jury enters the courtroom.)
        THE CLERK: Please be seated.
        MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Dr. Glenn, last week Mr. Ciresi asked you some questions about
    several specific research projects, and I want -- I want to follow up on
    some of that inquiry.
        Do you recall questions about a 1971 proposal to fund the research at
    Washington University --
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. -- regarding immunological issues and cancer?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Was that ever funded as a CTR special project?
        A. Not according to my record review.
        Q. Was it ever funded as a CTR grant?
        A. Not to my knowledge, no.
        Q. Do you know if it was ever funded in some other manner by the
    companies?
        *17 A. No.
        Q. You have no knowledge one way or the other.
        A. I do not.
        Q. Mr. Ciresi also asked you some question about grants to researchers
    who were named Spielberger and Aviado. Do you remember that?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And he questioned whether CTR might have suppressed that research.
    Do you remember that question?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Did CTR fund a researcher named Spielberger with a CTR special
    project?
        A. Not according to our records.
        Q. Did CTR fund a researcher named Spielberger with a grant?
        A. No.
        Q. You have no knowledge whatsoever about any research performed by
    Spielberger.
        A. No.
        Q. Did CTR fund Dr. Aviado with a CTR special project?
        A. I believe so.
        Q. Do you know if that is the project referred to in the document that
    Mr. Ciresi showed you?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, Your Honor, foundation.
        THE COURT: Okay. Well you may answer that.
        A. Dr. Aviado also was a grantee. I'm not sure which is referred to.
        Q. Or whether it's some other project.
        MR. CIRESI: Well, Your Honor, I'm going to object to counsel's leading
    question. There's no foundation.
        THE COURT: Yeah, that was leading, counsel. Sustained.
        Q. Do you know --
        Do you know what specific project was referred to in the document Mr.
    Ciresi showed you?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, no foundation. The witness has just testified.
        THE COURT: I believe he's answered that, counsel.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. With respect to the CTR special project funding for Dr. Aviado,
    could you turn to page -- to tab 23. And these are exhibits that are
    already in evidence, MD001143, MD001150. Those are part of the special
    project letters that were admitted earlier.
        A. I have them.
        Q. And let me show you first Exhibit 001143. Do you have that one?
        A. I do.
        Q. January 1978?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And does that talk about Dr. Aviado's right to publish in the
    future, down in the second-to-the-last paragraph?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And is this a typical letter to a CTR special project recipient?
        A. Yes, it is, similar to the previous letters that we reviewed.
        Q. And could you turn to Exhibit 1150, which I believe should be next
    in your tab. Do you see that?
        A. I have it.
        Q. That relates to the same special project number 93?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Does that also refer to potential future publication?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Do you have any information that CTR ever did anything to advise Dr.
    Aviado not to publish?
        A. No.
        Q. Did CTR ever fund projects through device or an account called
    special account four?
        A. I don't know what special account four is.
        Q. Does CTR have any files that include -- that are labeled special
    account four?
        A. No.
        Q. Did CTR ever fund research through anything called lawyers' special
    projects?
        A. No.
        Q. Does CTR have a file for lawyers' special projects?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. To the best of your knowledge, doctor, and taking into account your
    46 years in academic medicine and your work in the research community, do
    you believe that it was unethical or improper for CTR to fund research as
    CTR special projects?
        *18 MR. CIRESI: Objection to the form, no foundation, calls for an
    expert opinion, and also calls for an ultimate conclusion of fact by the
    jury.
        THE COURT: Sustained.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Based on your knowledge from your review of materials, do you
    believe that CTR did anything improper or unethical with respect to funding
    CTR special projects?
        MR. CIRESI: Same objections, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: Sustained.
        Q. Dr. Glenn, would you turn to Exhibit 11028. It's at tab 24. It's an
    exhibit already in evidence.
        A. I see that.
        MR. CIRESI: Do you have a exhibit number, counsel?
        MR. WEBER: 11028.
        Q. Is that one of the documents that Mr. Ciresi showed you last week?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. I'd like you to turn to the front page of that. Do you know any of
    these individuals, Bentley, Felton or Reid?
        A. No.
        Q. Do you know what their scientific capabilities were?
        A. No.
        Q. Is this a document that was in CRT's files?
        A. No.
        Q. Had you ever seen this document as part of your duties at CTR, apart
    from litigation?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Turn to the first page, which is the itinerary. You remember Mr.
    Ciresi asking you some questions about that?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Is --
        At the time was R. J. Reynolds a sponsor; that is, in 1958 was R. J.
    Reynolds a sponsor of TIRC?
        A. Yes, they were.
        Q. Was R. J. Reynolds visited on this trip?
        A. No, sir, not according to this itinerary.
        Q. According to this itinerary was Lorillard visited on this trip?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. According to this itinerary was Brown & Williamson visited on this
    trip?
        A. Not according to this itinerary.
        Q. Could you take a look through that document and let me know whether
    it purports to quote directly anyone from the CTR?
        A. I've reviewed this document previously, and I found no direct quotes
    from anyone at CTR.
        Q. Are you able to vouch for the accuracy of any of the
    characterizations of conversations in there, sir?
        A. No.
        MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, doctor. That calls for speculation. He's already
    said he's never saw it before.
        THE COURT: No, he can answer the question. It's been answered.
        MR. WEBER: He can? He can answer?
        THE COURT: He's already answered.
        MR. WEBER: Okay. I'm sorry, Your Honor.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Let me ask you this, Dr. Glenn: Could you read that bottom paragraph
    on the page marked 492 from this document.
        A. "The SAB," Scientific Advisory Board, "of TIRC and the group we at
    the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, broadly take the view that
    causation is likely to be indirect. Several hypothetical means by which
    this could occur were proposed but with no experimental evidence to support
    any of them."
        Q. All right. And I'd like to go to the next page, 493, and ask if you
    could read that first paragraph under "EXTRAPOLATION FROM ANIMAL TESTS TO
    MAN."
        A. "Without exception no single individual whom we met was prepared to
    extrapolate unambiguously from any single animal test to man. At the same
    time there was general agreement that in the field of smoking and lung
    cancer no biological test wholly free from criticism is available at the
    present time or is likely to become available in the foreseeable future."
        *19 Q. Now does that express an opinion that you agree with, Dr. Glenn?
        A. Yes. I would certainly have agreed at that time, 40 years ago, and I
    -- I think we still have the ambiguities.
        Q. Could you go to the page labeled 496.
        A. I have that.
        Q. And start at the paragraph that begins at the bottom of the page and
    goes over to the next page. Could you read that paragraph.
        A. "Others, including the Scientific Advisory Board of TIRC and a group
    at the National Cancer Institute, do not accept that a case has yet been
    made that tobacco smoke is directly carcinogenic to the human lung. While
    accepting broadly that cigarette smoking may be said to be capable of,
    quote, causing, unquote, lung cancer they argue that the evidence favors
    some indirect mechanism of causation. If this is so, of course, cancers
    produced by skin painting, and even more so, cell changes produced by
    short-term screening tests are misleading artifacts. Unfortunately so long
    as the basic problems underlying the transformation of a normal to a
    cancerous cell remain unsolved, theories of indirect causation must be
    largely speculative and almost without exception incapable of being tested
    experimentally. The advice we had from this group, which includes Dr.
    Little, was that T.M.S.C. should concern itself less with direct testing of
    cigarette smoke on animals than with fundamental work on carcinogenesis. An
    idea which we frequently encountered was that of an institute financed say
    by T.M.S.C. which would support a number of dedicated individuals of proved
    caliber who would devote their time to long range basic research on cancer
    without being distracted by administrative duties or financial worries. No
    short or medium-term solution to the problems facing the industry could be
    expected from such an institution, which would necessarily have to have no
    strings attached, but very long-term beneficial results might be expected."
        Q. Could you turn back to page 492, Dr. Glenn, and in the paragraph
    labeled "'CAUSATION' OF LUNG CANCER" -- do you see that?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Could you begin reading where it talks about Hueper of the National
    Cancer Institute. Do you see that?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Could you read that.
        A. "Hueper of the National Cancer Institute accepts that cigarette
    smoke is capable of causing lung cancer but believes that as compared with
    other environmental carcinogens the contribution of smoking to the total
    mortality from lung cancer is being greatly exaggerated."
        Q. Now doctor, turn to page 498, please.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Do you see the second conclusion down there --
        A. Yes.
        Q. -- at the bottom of the page? That hasn't been read to the jury yet.
    Could you read conclusion two.
        A. Conclusion two states: "There remains an area of debate to what is
    meant by, quote, causation, end quote. Opinion differs as to whether or not
    cigarette smoke is likely to exert its effect by direct action on the lung.
    An indirect mechanism of causation is thought by some to be more likely."
        *20 Q. Now, sir, this was in a 1958 document?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And again, you don't know the authors or the accuracy of the report;
    correct?
        A. No.
        Q. Did you take a look to see what the Scientific Advisory Board itself
    said in this same period about the issue of causation?
        A. I think they were saying the same things, that there were real
    questions as to whether there was a direct effect on the lung of cigarette
    smoking.
        Q. Did you look at the minutes of the Scientific Advisory Board --
        A. I did.
        Q. -- to -- to determine what the Scientific Advisory Board itself said
    about this issue of causation?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Could you turn to the Scientific Advisory Board minutes, which is
    Exhibit MD001258, I believe. Those should be in a separate binder up there.
    They were admitted into evidence already.
        A. Tell me the number again, please, sir.
        Q. It's Exhibit MD001258. Those are the minutes of the Scientific
    Advisory Board.
        A. Yes.
        Q. May I approach --
        A. I have those.
        Q. Okay. And could you turn to the page that is Bates stamped at the
    bottom 153.
        A. What would be the date on that?
        Q. It would be March 10, 1960, and the page -- the stamp at the bottom
    of the page would be 153, Dr. Glenn.
        A. I go from 152 to 154. I can read the --
        Q. Do we have a copy of that?
        Well let me ask you to identify this as page 153, on the screen.
        A. Yes.
        Q. And is this the cover sheet to a meeting of the Scientific Advisory
    Board in March 10 and 11 of 1960?
        A. It is.
        Q. Do you have page 157 there, Dr. Glenn?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And is 157 a report by the Scientific Advisory Board to the TIRC?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And that was part of the minutes of that meeting?
        A. Yes.
        Q. I'd like you to turn to the next page, 158. Do you have that, sir?
        A. I do.
        Q. And ask you to turn to the paragraph that begins "Even though...."
        A. Yes.
        Q. And to read that portion of the report of the Scientific Advisory
    Board in 1960.
        A. "Even though it must be admitted that the effort thus far has barely
    scratched the surface, excellent scientific studies have been reported, and
    it can confidently be assumed that the facts revealed will ultimately
    contribute to the solution of the broad questions which concern us. But
    perhaps the most significant development has been the general recognition
    that we do not yet have the answer; that an association between the extent
    of tobacco use and the incidence of lung cancer does not prove a causal
    relationship, that experimental verification is essential and that there
    are a number of other factors which need to be considered. Today, instead
    of letting the problem rest with the statement that to smoke in excess of
    two packs of cigarettes per day results in a ten-fold increase in the risk
    of cancer, there is general interest in the 90 percent of heavy smokers who
    escape the disease despite heavy smoking. We are also vitally interested in
    the meaning of the results, derived from the same data, that only a small
    fraction of the reported excess deaths in the heavy smoking group is
    attributable to cancer of the lungs."
        *21 Q. Dr. Glenn, from your standpoint, if one wanted to find out the
    view of the Scientific Advisory Board on the question of causation, is it a
    more reliable source to look to the Scientific Advisory Board's own report,
    or to look to a report from some British people?
        MR. CIRESI: Object to the form of the question, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: Sustained.
        Q. This is the SAB's own words in 1960; correct?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Could you turn to Exhibit 11027, Dr. Glenn, which is at tab 25.
        A. I have that.
        Q. And is this a --
        Is Exhibit 11027 one of the plaintiffs' exhibits that Mr. Ciresi showed
    you the other day?
        A. Yes, it is.
        Q. Had you ever seen this, apart from litigation?
        A. Only in connection with litigation.
        Q. Is this document in CRT's files?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Who's the author of this document, can you tell?
        A. I can't tell. I -- it's --
        Having looked at it previously, I couldn't tell who wrote it.
        Q. Is there a signature or a name listed on it anywhere?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Are there any direct quotes here from the CTR?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Could you turn to the page -- and I'll just give you the last three
    numbers of the Bates stamp in the lower right corner, Dr. Glenn, because
    the pages aren't otherwise numbered -- page 269.
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And I'd like to direct your attention to the first full paragraph at
    the top of the page.
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And this is referring to --
        This purports to be a report on a conversation with Dr. Wakeham.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Can you read what that says?
        A. "Wakeham said that polycyclics were effective in contributing to
    cancer in mouse skin painting, but the quantities in smoke were too small
    to be significant, as the Surgeon General Advisory Committee report had
    stated."
        Q. Now that says "SGAC," but that refers to Surgeon General's Advisory
    Committee; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And is that the point you made last Friday in your testimony?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Could you turn to the page labeled 290, Dr. Glenn.
        A. Yes, I have that.
        Q. And does this purport to be a report of a meeting with Dr. M. H.
    Seevers?
        A. It is labeled "Discussion with Dr. M. H. Seevers, Ann Arbor,
    Michigan, October 1, 1964."
        Q. Did Dr. Seevers have any involvement with the Surgeon General's
    Advisory Committee in 1964?
        A. Dr. Seevers was the chairman of the Surgeon General's Advisory
    Committee.
        Q. He was a member of that committee; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Let me just show from the 1964 report a list of the members here.
    That lists Dr. Seevers at the bottom; correct?
        A. Correct.
        Q. Now this document in front of you purports to reflect a discussion
    with Dr. Seevers in October '64?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And that's about 10 months after the issuance of the Surgeon
    General's report?
        A. Yes.
        Q. I'd like you to start reading about AMA research into smoking and
    health there, and I'll have a few questions as we go along, Dr. Glenn.
        *22 A. "To date, the committee (of which Seevers is chairman) appointed
    by the Education and Research Foundation of the AMA to direct the programs
    for using the 10-million-dollar fund contributed by the U.S. cigarette
    manufacturers, has approved 28 grants. The total cost of these over the
    periods for which they have been approved will be $2,400,000. Details of
    the grants are attached."
        Q. Okay.
        A. "The main considerations" --
        Q. Continue, please.
        A. "The main considerations which have been in the minds of the Seevers
    committee in making these grants have been:
        "(1) It is necessary to get more good people to undertake research in
    the smoking and health field, whether or not they live in the U.S.
        "(2) Research into cancer is not excluded but it has been
    over-supported in relation to other aspects. Under-supported have been
    research into respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, cellular
    studies, ciliary activity, pharmacological and psycological reasons for
    smoking.
        "(3) It is particularly necessary to find means of determining nicotine
    in the blood and organizing a supply of radio-active nicotine. The
    Committee aim particularly at developing techniques.
        "(4) The Committee do not plan to build their own laboratory though
    they may use the general medical research laboratory being built for the
    ERF of AMA in Chicago.
        "Where gaps exist, the Committee will initiate research projects to
    close them. They already have two or three such projects.
        "(6) The Committee is not concerned with modifications to cigarettes,
    how to treat tobacco et cetera. The manufacturers are more competent to do
    this. Similarly, the Committee is not concerned with cigarette tars, which
    would require a laboratory for their production.
        "(7) The House of Delegates of the AMA, in accepting the fund, looked
    to it being used for the development of safe cigarettes. The Committee
    considered that they were not set up to do this, and had no manufacturing
    competence, et cetera - Seevers said they had a hard time getting away from
    this objective.
        "(8) The Committee would support epidemiological studies if they
    received good applications.
        "(9) The Committee may support research in more fields as they get more
    and more projects going.
        "(10) They may add other experts (an example, pathologists) to the
    Committee; just feeling their way at present.
        "(11) If they find good projects, they won't hesitate to spend over the
    10 million dollars as the AMA would have no difficulty in finding more
    money.
        "(12) They have refused to finance anti-smoking clinics or education.
        "(13) They expect to co-operate closely with CTR."
        Q. Let me stop you there for a moment, Dr. Glenn. This refers to a 10-
    million-dollar grant given by the cigarette manufacturers to the AMA?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And the AMA set up a board of scientific advisors to approve
    research applications?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Were you one of the researchers back in those days who received a
    grant from the AMA pursuant to this?
        *23 A. My laboratory -- my laboratory, the laboratory under my
    direction, received a grant for study under the American Medical
    Association Education and Research Fund.
        Q. Would you go to the next page, Dr. Glenn, where it reports -- the
    page that begins "Seevers' personal views...."
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Now again, Dr. Seevers had been on the Surgeon General's committee
    that had issued the report 10 months earlier; correct?
        A. Correct.
        Q. What does this say about Dr. Seevers' personal views?
        A. "1. Seevers does not believe that it has been proved that smoking
    causes lung cancer. There is an association and it should be made known.
    The strongest evidence for a causal connection is Auerbach's work, but it
    is not conclusive. Seevers is not sure the validity of the statistics."
        Q. The next --
        Could you read the next paragraph as well.
        A. "2. Seevers is convinced the main reason why people smoke is the
    nicotine. He thinks it important to keep the nicotine content up. He has
    suggested to Hanmer of The American Tobacco Company that they should add
    back nicotine to cut the tobacco and then reduce both nicotine and tar, as
    in Carlton, by filter and porous paper. To produce a non-tobacco cigarette
    was contrary to common sense."
        Q. Could you go now, Dr. Glenn, to the page 294.
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. And this continues the purported characterization of the discussions
    with Dr. Seevers; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. What does this say about the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee?
        A. "Seevers said that it was a committee of prima donnas. Although none
    of the members had published expressed views on smoking and health they all
    had very definite views. The Surgeon General never came near the committee.
    Handley acted as chairman of the meetings; he was pleasant but ineffective,
    allowing far too much irrelevant chat. Bains-Jones, as oldest member, had
    to step in from time to time to get points settled. Two whole days were
    spent discussing the meaning of, quote, cause, unquote. The political
    people tried to hurry up the committee but did not otherwise try to
    influence them. The, quote, member responsible for cancer (probably Furth)
    submitted a draft for the chapter on cancer that had been written by the
    American Cancer Society. This was thrown out."
        Q. Now, do you remember the earlier trip report that we discussed, I
    think that was Exhibit 11028 from 1958, and it talked about how there was a
    debate as to what the meaning of "cause" was. Do you remember that?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And here we see that Dr. Seevers in October 1964, according to this
    document, did not believe that it had been proven that smoking caused
    cancer; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And Dr. Seevers, again according to this document, says that two
    whole days were spent by the Surgeon General's committee discussing the
    meaning of "cause." Do you see that?
        A. Yes.
        Q. I'd like to turn you now to the 1964 Surgeon General's report, Dr.
    Glenn. What tab is that? I think it's tab 43, MD000102. That's already in
    evidence.
        *24 A. I have that.
        Q. And could you turn to page 21 then.
        A. I have that.
        Q. And could you turn to paragraph four, paragraph number four in the
    causality section.
        A. Yes.
        Q. And this is where, in the introduction, they're discussing
    causality; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. All right. Can you read that to the jury.
        A. "It should be said at once, however, that no member of this
    committee used the word 'cause' in an absolute sense in the area of this
    study. Although various disciplines and fields of scientific knowledge were
    represented among the membership, all members shared a common conception of
    the multiple etiology of biological processes."
        Q. Let me stop you there. What does "multiple etiology" mean, Dr.
    Glenn?
        A. Means that there may be many, many factors involved in the genesis
    of any particular condition, whether it be cancer or other disease.
        Q. You mean "etiology" means cause?
        A. Means causes.
        Q. So this means --
        This says everyone agreed that there were many causes.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Would you continue.
        A. "No member was so naive as to insist upon mono-etiology in
    pathologic processes or in vital phenomena. All were thoroughly aware of
    the fact that there are series of events in occurrences and developments in
    these fields, and that the end results are the net effect of many actions
    and counteractions."
        Q. Now, Dr. Glenn, does the fact that "cause" was not used in an
    absolute sense, the fact that there was a common conception of multiple
    etiology, and that no one was so naive as to insist upon mono-etiology,
    would you explain how those ideas relate to your statements the other day
    about the importance of defining "cause?"
        MR. CIRESI: Objection to the form of the question, Your Honor. It's a
    multiple question. It's also impeaching his own witness.
        MR. WEBER: I object and move to strike that comment, Your Honor. It's
    entirely inappropriate.
        MR. CIRESI: It's an inappropriate objection, impeaching their own
    witness.
        THE COURT: Okay. You'll have to rephrase your question, counsel.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Dr. Glenn, taking into account Exhibit 1127 that talked about a
    definition of "cause "-- you remember that?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. -- and 1128, where we saw Dr. Seevers' personal views as reported in
    that document -- correct?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. -- and taking into account this paragraph four, do those documents
    along with your learning relate in any way to the need to agree upon a
    definition of "cause" when discussing chronic disease?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Could you explain that.
        A. Well I -- I don't know that there's any simple explanation. We have
    said that in order to establish cause, it should be -- it should have some
    universality, that we ought be able to reproduce results. Here in this
    document and in the others that we've looked at it is clear that scientists
    even 30, 40 years ago were worrying about the same questions. This has led
    to the -- to the recognition that there are multiple risk factors involved
    in a number of diseases. And to digress from lung cancer, you can take, for
    example, arteriosclerosis. We know that diet plays a role, the level of
    your cholesterol, we know that activity plays a role, we know that hormones
    play a role, so there are multiple causes of arteriosclerosis. The same
    thing can be said of virtually every disease, that there are a number of
    factors that are involved. We probably have only just seen the tip of the
    iceberg, but at least we've come to the recognition that there are
    fundamental problems.
        *25 And the thing that the scientific community has done most
    effectively, I think, is to -- is to recognize that there are marked
    individual differences which may underlie everything. These individual
    differences are genetics. Probably the best thing we can do to avoid
    disease is to pick the right parents, because our -- our -- our
    inheritance, our genetic makeup --
        MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we're going beyond the scope of this witness's
    examination.
        Q. All right, Dr. Glenn, let me move to a different topic now.
        Has CTR, to your knowledge, been represented by counsel since its
    inception?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Why does a research organization, in your mind, need to be
    represented by counsel?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, Your Honor, it's vague and overbroad.
        THE COURT: I'm not sure that it's relevant, counsel.
        MR. WEBER: The relevance is, if you'll give me a few questions, I'll
    make -- make it clear because I'm leading up to a specific situation, Your
    Honor.
        THE COURT: Okay.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Can you explain why a research organization, based on your
    experience, needs to be represented by counsel?
        A. I think there are a variety of reasons. Any research organization,
    any university I've ever been associated with, any hospital, has counsel,
    because you enter into contracts for research, you -- you subscribe to
    certain conditions of a grant, you have fiscal responsibility,
    responsibility for the money that's involved. There are always antitrust
    issues, for example, in an organization such as the CTR.
        MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, Your Honor. We're now well beyond what this
    gentleman is here for.
        THE COURT: We aren't going to get into his version of antitrust issues.
        MR. WEBER: Not his version of law, but in specific situations I want to
    get into, Your Honor.
        Q. Based on your experience at CTR and the fact that it's sponsored by
    companies, independent companies in the marketplace, has CTR received
    advice on antitrust issues from time to time?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Now without revealing any of the substance of that advice, are you
    aware of a situation back in the 1970s when the Scientific Advisory Board
    received advice on antitrust issues?
        MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, if he's going to testify to this, it opens up
    the subject, and we will be entitled to the documentation regarding it,
    which has been resisted.
        THE COURT: Counsel, I suggest you use extreme care.
        MR. WEBER: May I be heard at side bar on this, Your Honor.
        THE COURT: Yes, you may.
            (Side-bar conference)
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. Let's talk for a minute, Dr. Glenn, about the scope of the SAB
    research program and its relevance to the purpose of The Council for
    Tobacco Research. All right?
        First of all let me ask you: Have the companies ever told you that
    CRT's Scientific Advisory Board should avoid certain areas of research?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Now do you recall Mr. Ciresi asked some questions last week about
    criticisms of CTR by scientists in the various sponsor companies in the
    sixties and seventies?
        *26 A. Yes.
        Q. Do you recall that some of those documents suggested that CTR should
    be redirected or restructured?
        A. Yes.
        Q. That company scientists should be put on its board?
        A. Yes.
        Q. That CTR should be made more directly useful to the industry?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Was CTR so restructured, Dr. Glenn?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Were company scientists put in control of CTR?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Was the role of the Scientific Advisory Board changed because of
    these internal criticisms?
        A. No.
        Q. Was it part of CRT's charter to do research that the companies'
    scientists would find useful or helpful?
        A. No.
        Q. Do you believe that CRT's grant program over the years has been
    relevant to its charter, the investigation of diseases and disease
    processes associated with smoking?
        A. Progressively so.
        Q. Does the fact that many of these projects don't specifically say
    they relate to tobacco or smoking make that research irrelevant?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. What I'd like you to -- to do for us is explain --
        Well before I get to it, let me ask this: Has the type of research
    focused on by the Scientific Advisory Board changed over the years based on
    your knowledge of the research that's been funded?
        A. Yes, very much so.
        Q. Can you explain that?
        A. Well I think the best explanation is that there's been an evolution
    of scientific thought. If you go back historically and look at the very
    first medical investigations five hundred years ago, they were anatomic.
    The scientists of the time were looking at gross human anatomy. Later on
    they began to focus on abnormal anatomy and diseased organs, but they were
    still looking at things grossly. It was not until the advent of the
    microscope that they were able to take a microscopic look at things.
        In more modern times it's been obvious that if we're going to
    understand fundamental disease we've got to know what happens within
    individual cells, what happens to individual molecules, and specifically
    why those cells and molecules go wrong, which is most probably related to
    immunology and genetics. So the focus of research has become more and more
    precise, more and more defined. The same thing has happened to research
    sponsored by CTR that's happened in the general scientific community, and
    that is that we're focusing more and more on these fundamental processes.
        In the beginning, if you look back historically at the CTR documents,
    the early studies were epidemiological, relating smoking to diseases. There
    were studies of smoke inhalation in animals, exposing animals to cigarette
    smoke. They were very broad in their implication, but it didn't say
    anything to why does the -- this -- this cause an abnormality. So I think
    the Scientific Advisory Board exhibited tremendous insight as they began to
    focus their research on the more molecular levels, the cellular levels, and
    in recent years the genetic level. This has been in parallel to what's been
    happening at the federal level.
        *27 I'm sure you know -- all know that one of the biggest scientific
    projects facing the country today is the so-called human genome project.
    What they're -- what the NIH is attempting to do --
        MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, this is -- this is well beyond the scope of
    this individual's testimony.
        Q. Let me ask -- let me ask you this: Is CTR funding work in genetics?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Immunology?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Molecular biology?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Microbiology?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Virology?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Are all of those fields relevant to the questions you're looking at?
        A. Absolutely.
        Q. Has the National Institute of Health been criticized for undertaking
    basic research of this type into diseases as well?
        MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, objection, it's totally irrelevant to this
    case.
        THE COURT: You can answer that.
        A. Yes. There has been criticism that the NIH was not focused on broad
    aspects of disease but more on basic science, and as a matter of fact, the
    director of NIH has defended this vigorously.
        Q. That is to say, he's defended doing this molecular basic research.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Now last week Mr. Ciresi asked you a question based on some of your
    congressional testimony. Do you remember that?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And you stated that he wasn't focusing on all of your congressional
    testimony. Remember that?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Is the explanation of relevance that you've just given consistent
    with that testimony?
        A. Yes, it is.
        Q. Has CTR research made real and substantial contributions to
    understanding diseases and disease processes associated with smoking?
        MR. CIRESI: Objection, calls for speculation, conclusion, expert
    opinion. He's not qualified.
        THE COURT: Sustained.
        Q. You've been scientific director of CTR?
        A. Yes, I have.
        Q. You've been a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of CTR?
        A. Yes, I have.
        Q. And on the Scientific Advisory Board you've met with leading
    scientists in areas from throughout this country?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Do you know whether the Scientific Advisory Board of CTR believes
    that its research has made substantial contributions to understanding the
    diseases associated with smoking and health?
        MR. CIRESI: Well, same objections, and also calls for hearsay,
    speculation, conjecture.
        THE COURT: Well it's --
        MR. WEBER: It's a verbal act, Your Honor, and it's obviously what
    they've done as an organization.
        THE COURT: Yeah. It's pretty self-serving. I think we should move on.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. How do you rate the overall quality of CRT's research funded through
    the SAB, Dr. Glenn?
        A. I think it's outstanding.
        MR. CIRESI: Your Honor -- excuse me, doctor, excuse me. Same objection,
    he's not been offered on this.
        THE COURT: Okay. I'll -- I'll allow him to give his rating.
        A. I think that the track record of the SAB in selecting research
    projects has been absolutely outstanding.
        Q. Let me ask you, Dr. Glenn, to turn to Exhibit 1949, which should be
    in tab 28. And that's a demonstrative exhibit.
        *28 A. I have it.
        Q. Is that a demonstrative exhibit that relates to what the Frank
    Statement said about the TIRC?
        A. Yes.
        MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I'd move the introduction of Exhibit 1949 for
    demonstrative purposes.
        MR. CIRESI: I have no objection to this.
        THE COURT: Court will receive 1949 for demonstrative purposes.
    BY MR. WEBER:
        Q. And again, this might be a little more legible on these side
    monitors than on -- on the big one.
        Now this exhibit talks about what the Frank Statement said about the
    TIRC or CTR itself; correct?
        A. Correct.
        Q. And that portion about the TIRC is highlighted over there on the
    right.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Now it says that the companies are pledging aid and assistance to
    the research effort. Do you see that?
        A. I do.
        Q. Did that happen?
        A. Yes, sir, it did.
        Q. It said it was establishing a joint industry group consisting of the
    undersigned known as the TIRC. Did that happen?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. It said that in charge of the research activities would be a
    scientist of unimpeachable integrity and national repute. Did that happen?
        A. Very definitely.
        Q. And who was that scientist?
        A. Dr. C. C. Little.
        Q. It also said there would be an Advisory Board of scientists
    disinterested in the cigarette industry. "A group of distinguished men from
    medicine, science and education will be invited to serve on this board.
    These scientists will advise the committee on its research activities." Did
    that happen?
        A. Yes, sir.
        Q. Has there been a Scientific Advisory Board throughout the years for
    CTR?
        A. There has.
        Q. Are you proud of the work you've done for CTR, Dr. Glenn?
        A. Absolutely.
        Q. If the grants that CTR through its SAB makes weren't supported by
    money from cigarette companies, do you think anybody would be complaining
    about these grants?
        MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, objection to the form of the question.
        THE COURT: Sustained.
        MR. WEBER: That's all I have, Your Honor. I've got to move a few things
    though.
    BY MR. CIRESI:
        Q. Good morning, doctor.
        A. Good morning, Mr. Ciresi.
        Q. When the Frank Statement was put up there, Mr. Weber quit reading
    after the fact pledging aid and assistance to the research effort, but then
    he stopped; didn't he?
        A. I don't remember.
        Q. You don't remember. Well let me read the rest of that statement,
    "research effort into all phases of tobacco use and health." That was the
    pledge; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Okay. Now today you talked about a number of studies that were done;
    correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Ones that were done here in Minnesota.
        A. Yes.
        Q. Tell me which one of those studies dealt directly with smoking and
    health and what was the protocol for that study.
        A. I think they all dealt with smoking and health, because we have to
    understand the basic disease process.
        Q. That's not what I asked, sir. Tell me which one of those studies
    felt -- or dealt specifically with smoking and health and what was the
    protocol for that study.
        *29 MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it was asked and answered.
        THE COURT: It hasn't been answered. You may answer.
        A. All of them.
        Q. Sir, tell me the protocol for one of the studies that dealt
    specifically with smoking and health. Tell me the protocol.
        A. I can't -- I can't tell you the protocol.
        Q. You can't tell me the protocol for any of those studies; can you,
    sir?
        A. No. No.
        Q. You can't tell us the protocol for any of the studies conducted by
    the entire funding of the CTR over its 40 years; can you?
        A. That's true, because the protocol is a scientific document and I
    can't repeat that to you.
        Q. So you can't tell us specifically how any of those studies, if any
    of them, dealt specifically with smoking and health; can you, as you sit
    here?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Sir, then tell me one protocol of one study.
        A. I can't tell you the protocol. I can tell you that understanding
    basic disease process is fundamental to unlocking the problem of smoking
    and health.
        Q. I didn't ask you about the general basic disease process, I asked
    about smoking and health.
        MR. WEBER: Object to the --
        Q. A specific -- excuse me. A specific protocol for smoking and health,
    can you describe it?
        A. No.
        MR. WEBER: Object to the introduction and -- and the commenting, Your
    Honor.
        THE COURT: Okay. Try and avoid comment, counsel.
        Q. Is your answer no, sir?
        A. No.
        Q. Thank you.
        Now you talked about the members of the SAB; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And how many of those personally have you known over the years?
        A. Well we'd have to look at the list. I don't -- I did not personally
    know people who were on the Scientific Advisory Board from 1954, but I have
    known many of them over the years. All of the current members are well
    known to me and many of the former members.
        Q. All right. So you've known a number. Would that be a fair statement?
        A. I'm sorry?
        Q. You have known a number of them. Would that be a fair statement?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Okay. And you said that all of the members were of quality; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Of integrity; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Cream of the crop, isn't that what you said?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Some were members of the National Academy of Sciences; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Some were Nobel Prize winners. I think you mentioned three; correct?
        A. Those were grantees.
        Q. Grantees. Is that right?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Now when did the CTR survey all of those individuals to determine
    their opinions whether smoking caused lung cancer?
        A. Never.
        Q. When did they survey all of those individuals to determine whether
    or not smoking caused COPD?
        A. Never.
        Q. When did the CTR survey all of those eminent scientists with respect
    to whether or not smoking caused heart disease?
        A. Never.
        Q. When did the CTR survey all of those eminent scientists to determine
    whether they felt smoking caused oral cancer?
        A. Never.
        Q. When did CTR survey all of those eminent scientists to determine
    whether they felt smoking caused laryngeal cancer?
        *30 A. Never.
        Q. When did the CTR survey all of those eminent scientists to determine
    whether or not smoking caused esophageal cancer?
        A. Never.
        Q. When did the CTR survey all of those eminent scientists to determine
    whether or not they believed smoking caused kidney cancer?
        A. Never. But --
        Q. When did the CTR --
        A. -- you have to ask --
        You have to let me finish my answer, Mr. Ciresi.
        Q. Sir, I only asked whether they surveyed or not, and your answer is
    no; correct? Is that correct?
        A. My answer is no. But there is no point in a survey. A survey is not
    a scientific document. And every eminent scientist that you have alluded to
    certainly had his own opinions about causation and what causation
    constitutes, and certainly had his own information about the statistical
    relationship of smoking and other activities to the risk of developing
    certain diseases, so a survey would have been naive to say the least and
    unfortunate at best.
        Q. I understand you like the word "naive," sir. You've used that
    before; haven't you?
        MR. WEBER: Objection to the commentary, Your Honor.
        Q. Well let me just ask the question very simply.
        MR. WEBER: Can I move to strike that?
        THE COURT: Counsel --
        MR. CIRESI: I'll withdraw it.
        THE COURT: Withdraw it. All right.
        Q. You've used the word "naive" before; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Now, when did the CTR survey all of their eminent scientists as to
    whether or not smoking caused bladder cancer?
        A. Never.
        Q. When did the CTR survey all of their eminent scientists to determine
    whether or not smoking caused pancreatic -- pancreatic cancer?
        A. Never.
        Q. When did the officials, the executive officers of the defendant
    manufacturing companies, come to the CTR and say, "We think there's a
    controversy. Let's get these eminent scientists in and we, the CEOs of the
    company, want to hear what they say?" When did they do that?
        A. Never.
        Q. When did the CEOs of any of these companies ever say, "Please go out
    to these eminent scientists and find out whether they believe, based on all
    of their research, that smoking causes any of the diseases that I just
    asked you about?" When did they do that, sir?
        A. Never, because the term "causation" was inappropriate.
        Q. We'll get to that, sir.
        MR. WEBER: Object to that again, and move to strike it, Your Honor.
        MR. CIRESI: Well, Your Honor, that wasn't --
        MR. WEBER: It's continuing.
        THE COURT: I'll allow that comment.
        Q. When did the CEOs of any of these companies come up to you and say,
    "How much money that we've given to CTR has specifically been spent on
    smoking-and-health-related research?"
        A. They haven't asked that question because they know that all of the
    money has been devoted to that issue.
        Q. They've never asked you that; have they, sir?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Not any scientist from any of those companies has ever asked you;
    have they?
        A. No, sir, because they are well aware that we are directing our
    attention to the fundamental disease processes associated with smoking.
        *31 Q. And what you said on Friday with regard to these grants was that
    they're generally in the area of 80 to 85 thousand dollars, and they allow
    young people just getting started to get their feet wet. Isn't that what
    you said?
        A. That's correct.
        Q. And the vast majority of these grants of CTR have been to young
    people just getting their feet wet; --
        A. No.
        Q. -- correct?
        A. I didn't say that. I said these grants -- these grants have allowed
    young people to get a start, but we've also funded well-established
    investigators, such as the Nobel Prize winners that I've told you about.
        Q. Well let me direct your attention to page 4775, when you were
    talking about the pages of the grants on an exhibit that was shown to you
    by counsel, and you said as follows: "And the amount of the award is listed
    there, and I would tell you that our average award is something like 80 or
    85 thousand dollars a year."
        A. That's correct.
        Q. "So they're not huge grants. But they are very good grants,
    especially for young people who are just getting their -- their feet wet."
    Is that what you said?
        A. Yes, sir.
        MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's an improper use of a deposition.
    It's not inconsistent.
        THE COURT: Sustained.
    BY MR. CIRESI:
        Q. Now, how many of the CTR awards were for people just getting their
    feet wet? How many?
        A. I can't tell you a specific number, but a substantial number. The
    point I was making is that a grant of this magnitude is of extreme value to
    someone who is just getting started in the biomedical research field.
        Q. And sir, have you done a survey to determine how many of these
    awards were to people just getting their feet wet?
        A. No. We've never done a tabulation.
        Q. Have you, in the time you've been with the CTR --
        You've testified a number of occasions; correct?
        A. No.
        Q. How many times have you testified in your life, 40 times?
        A. Perhaps.
        Q. Okay. Now in the entire time that you've been with the CTR, have you
    gone out and asked the grantees who are doing the work, "Do you believe
    this related to smoking and health?" Have you done that?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Have you directed anyone at the CTR to do that, sir?
        A. No, sir.
        Q. Have the defendants asked the CTR to ever do that?
        A. No.
        Q. Now you talk --
        You talked about risks; did you not, sir? The risks for -- I think you
    talked about high cholesterol for heart disease and -- you remember that
    testimony?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And you were talking about various risk factors; is that right?
        A. Yes.
    . I want to hand you the 1989 Surgeon General's report.
        MR. CIRESI: May I approach, Your Honor?
        THE COURT: All right.
            (Document handed to the witness.)
        Q. I'll hand you the entire report, sir, if you want to look anyplace
    to make sure it's in context, and also a part of it.
        MR. WEBER: Do you have an exhibit number on that, Mr. Ciresi?
        MR. CIRESI: The 1989 is Exhibit 3821.
        *32 MR. WEBER: Thank you.
    BY MR. CIRESI:
        Q. Now on page 160, is there an estimated risk of various activities?
        A. Yes, there is.
        Q. And do you know what that's for, sir?
        A. This says "Table 13, Estimated Risk of Various Activities," and then
    it lists activities or cause, and then annual fatalities per one million
    exposed persons.
        Q. Is that for lung cancer?
        A. No, this is in general. It's for a variety of activities.
        Q. Do you know what --
        So it's for a variety of activities and which activities cause death;
    correct?
        A. Not necessarily cause. It says activity or cause.
        Q. Okay.
        A. And then it lists the fatalities associated with that risk.
        Q. Now let's take a look, then, at that Table 13.
        MR. WEBER: I'm going to object to any questions about this, Your Honor.
    Dr. Glenn testified about risk factors, not about risks of comparable
    activities. This is beyond the scope of what -- what his testimony was.
        THE COURT: No, I think that's within the scope.
    BY MR. CIRESI:
        Q. Now sir, on the left-hand margin it says "Activity or cause;"
    correct?
        A. Correct.
        Q. And then it has "Annual fatalities for 1 million exposed persons."
    Correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And for active smoking it was 7,000; correct?
        A. That's correct.
        Q. And for alcohol totally it was 541, 275 by accident and 266 by
    disease; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And then it went all the way down through work, swimming, football,
    electrocution, et cetera; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Now when we talk about cause, doctor, last week we talked about the
    Henle Koch postulates; didn't we?
        Q. Yes.
        Q. And today when you were talking about cause, you were talking about
    universality. Do you remember that word you used?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And by that you meant that every time someone was exposed to
    something, universally a disease would be produced, according to Henle
    Koch; correct?
        A. No, I didn't say according to Henle Koch. I talked about the
    universality of risk factors.
        Q. You were talking about universality of risk factors then?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Is that what you were saying?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Well the Henle Koch postulates were based on 19th century medical
    science; weren't they?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And we went through those last week; didn't we, sir?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And we found that you yourself believed that certain viruses would
    cause a disease regardless of whether they met Henle Koch postulates;
    didn't you?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And one of those was Epstein-Barr; right?
        A. Yes.
        Q. Your judgment was that caused infectious mononucleosis; correct?
        A. It has been so stated, yes.
        Q. And you agreed with that; didn't you?
        A. Yes.
        Q. It was a cause of infectious mononucleosis; correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. How many other causes of infectious mononucleosis are there, sir?
        A. I don't know.
        Q. Many, aren't there?
        A. Yes.
        Q. All kinds of causes of infectious mononucleosis; correct?
        *33 A. As I understand it, yes.
        Q. Do you know how many cases of infectious mononucleosis are caused by
    Epstein-Barr?
        A. No.
        Q. Do you know how many are caused by the other causes?
        A. No.
        Q. But you used the word "cause" in that effect; don't you, sir?
        A. I accept your use of the term "cause" in the lay sense.
        Q. And the medical scientists accept that; don't they, sir?
        A. In the lay sense, yes.
        Q. Not in the lay sense. Werner Henle, who found the Epstein-Barr virus
    as a cause of infectious mononucleosis, used it in a medical sense; didn't
    he, sir?
        A. I don't know.
        Q. You just don't know.
        A. No.
        Q. Okay. Do you know how many cases of lung cancer are caused by
    smoking as contrasted with any other cause?
        A. I accept the word "cause" in the lay sense, and I don't know the
    answer.
        Q. You don't. But you do know that the attorney -- or excuse me, the
    Surgeon General since 1964 has used the word "cause;" correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And explained the word "cause" in the Surgeon General's report;
    correct?
        A. Yes.
        Q. And went and talked about the experimental approach accepted by
    scientists which provides a direct method for establishing whether an
    association is causal; correct?
        A. I don't follow your question.
        Q. The Surgeon General in the 1964 report set forth the experimental
    approach which provides a direc